I'm not a good, trained listener like the guys here, but I think FhG encoder VBR preset 2 is very good, too.I've had an impression that QuickTime tends to move spatial locations of the sound for lower bitrate setting (sound at slightly off from center is encoded into dead center). For this reason, QuickTime AAC is sometimes too easily ABX-able only by spatial information change, even for poor listener like me.Though I didn't tried much, FhG seems not suffering from this kind of problem.

Maybe it's not the appropriate topic, but can we get an estimate when the FhG AAC encoder in Winamp will support HD-AAC encoding?

Btw, the VBR Preset 2 setting sounds really good considering that this is an AAC+ with SBR which i don't really like Although i've only listened to it through my amplifier yet. This way AAC+ always gives better result than listening to it using my phone. SBR's problems gets magnified with headphones by me.

Don't worry, you didn't. It's just that I (or we) can't answer this question at the moment. And thanks for your verdict of VBR mode 2!

Oh, i see Sorry, just really like to test HD-AAC and keep asking it everywhere nowadays.

About the VBR2 thing: i've tested it today while walking to work. With headphones SBR artifacts are easily noticable (especially where it adds sinusoids to the replicate content, or it missuses high volume noise in a band to replicate a complex waveform). However it's not that bad as i've expected. Maybe some tuning can be made to hide these annoying artifacts (i think it would be still better to replace complex waveform with some low level noise than encode a loud artifact which has nothing to do with the original waveform). I wish i could understand the complex algorithms behind HE-AAC so i can do some tune on my own. Maybe one day, i'm a programmer so there's hope

Is it maybe possible to do some improvement on the high frequencies?I've tested a sample with hi-hats on VBR mode 2 and the difference is really obvious...

Probably not. As darkbyte mentioned, VBR 1 and 2 use SBR on the high frequencies, which is a parametric coding tool. Although it can get very close to the high-frequency input signal in terms of quality, it never fully reaches transparency in these frequencies. But you save quite a lot of bitrate. You can hear for yourself what it sounds like without SBR by choosing "AAC-LC Constant Bit Rate" encoding at 64 or 68 kbps in Winamp.

An SBR encoder is a quite complicated thing, darkbyte But we'll check whether some fine-tunings are still possible.

Is there a way to encode using FhG AAC codec out of Winamp? I mean, a command line encoder or something.

I'm interested in testing/comparing it but not very keen on installing third party software though.

EDIT: Sorry, just read this.

QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ Nov 17 2011, 18:47)

And to be clear: the command-line encoder you are talking about is neither developed nor supported nor endorsed by Fraunhofer (Fraunhofer sells its own command-line encoder which has dozens of switches, incl. quality). Nullsoft, in particular benski, have put the encoder and a lot of work into Winamp so that people like and use their software. So please appreciate that by using the encoder through Winamp.

I may not totally approve this in terms of compatibility but, anyway, codec can be used for free.

Is it necessary to use the --ignorelength command when encoding with Foobar? Could it do any harm if it's used, slower speed perhaps?I've read the description, but I'm not familiar with the technicalities, so I'm not sure how it applies to practical usage. (I encode mostly from FLAC, BTW.)

Thanks.One thing I noticed is that when converting with Foobar the files are a tiny bit larger than when converting with Winamp. The difference is less than 0.01 MB for a track and it varies.I used this command in Foobar:

Is there a way to encode using FhG AAC codec out of Winamp? I mean, a command line encoder or something.

I'm interested in testing/comparing it but not very keen on installing third party software though.

EDIT: Sorry, just read this.

QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ Nov 17 2011, 18:47)

And to be clear: the command-line encoder you are talking about is neither developed nor supported nor endorsed by Fraunhofer (Fraunhofer sells its own command-line encoder which has dozens of switches, incl. quality). Nullsoft, in particular benski, have put the encoder and a lot of work into Winamp so that people like and use their software. So please appreciate that by using the encoder through Winamp.

I may not totally approve this in terms of compatibility but, anyway, codec can be used for free.

Its a shame thier product is so badly protected.IsDebuggerPresent()? Give me a break.

I think I've found a new problem sample. The total ABX result is not that great, but after a reset I got a 9/10.When you've downloaded the sample you'll notice a more or less subtle hi-hat after the kick starts. It sounded kinda off and harsh to me, which was the reason I started the test. I think there is already a difference when the kicks start, but I mainly focussed on the hi-hats that start at around 16 seconds and "respond" to the kicks. Everything was converted with the latest Winamp btw.

...the hi-hats that start at around 16 seconds and "respond" to the kicks.

These are quite tough for an encoder, since they are actually composed of many extremely short clicks. See spectrogram of the first of those hi-hats in the FLAC file. However, the encoder preserves them very well, except for above 16 kHz or so.

I've ABXed the sample. Even if you disregard the last vote (I got tired), I'm still hovering around 20% guessing, so no significant ABX from me.

...the hi-hats that start at around 16 seconds and "respond" to the kicks.

These are quite tough for an encoder, since they are actually composed of many extremely short clicks. See spectrogram of the first of those hi-hats in the FLAC file. However, the encoder preserves them very well, except for above 16 kHz or so.

I've ABXed the sample. Even if you disregard the last vote (I got tired), I'm still hovering around 20% guessing, so no significant ABX from me.

Chris

Thanks for your effort, Chris!What do you think, is there any room for improvement on this issue (if you can call it like that)?

Thanks for your effort, Chris!What do you think, is there any room for improvement on this issue (if you can call it like that)?

Other than pumping more bits into high frequencies at VBR 5, no. I'll think about it. In the meantime, would you mind listening to the attached file at normal listening level (i.e. the same volume as during casual listening to music) and tell me how many tone pulses you can hear?

Thanks for your effort, Chris!What do you think, is there any room for improvement on this issue (if you can call it like that)?

Other than pumping more bits into high frequencies at VBR 5, no. I'll think about it. In the meantime, would you mind listening to the attached file at normal listening level (i.e. the same volume as during casual listening to music) and tell me how many tone pulses you can hear?

The first one is pretty clear, the second one is already very quiet, and after that I hear nothing at all.

I guess that's not really good, isn't it?

That's a common misconception here on HA. You listened at normal levels (i.e. not cranking up the volume), so your performance is perfectly normal, maybe even above average for your age. At normal levels I get the same result as you. Bottom line: you might have heard artifacts below 16 kHz, so I'm not going to put more bits into high frequencies.

Is this "issue" a show-stopper for you? Apparently this was very hard to ABX. Can you live with the encoder's current performance on this item? Or are you really looking for utmost transparency?